MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

**Tomb** · April 17, 2005, 08:25 AM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Originally posted by alrakis

So FhG outperformed Lame in that test? Cool. I think I'm going to reencode all my collection now.

Why?

While I don't doubt Neil's word (and he is lucky to have someone buy expensive stereo equipment for him - most people don't) I still see no evidence of what he says and that other tests carried out by the audio community proves otherwise.

If his comments were that blade or Cosmo MPEG 2000 outperformed Lame would you take his word for it?

**Tomb** · April 17, 2005, 08:32 AM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Originally posted by neilthecellist

but but but.....ABX testing on the computer is pointless and sounds like crap anyways on even the BEST headphones out there...more accurate test results can be obtained from performing the on kickarse audio systems like the L70 DVD-Receiver.

For the simple reasons that:

Most people have computers and not all have a L70 DVD Receiver

and;
Most people listen to their digital collection via a computer and not via a stereo.

Again you have made a comment without evidence to back it up. How do you know that ABX testing is pointless and sounds crap on even the best headphones? It's just a comment you have made! I hope you do not write school essays saying for instance that Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbour or the Olympic games were held on the moon in 2000 etc without backing that statement up. Can you see what I'm driving at here?

**alrakis** · April 17, 2005, 03:54 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Originally posted by Tomb

Why?

While I don't doubt Neil's word (and he is lucky to have someone buy expensive stereo equipment for him - most people don't) I still see no evidence of what he says and that other tests carried out by the audio community proves otherwise.

If his comments were that blade or Cosmo MPEG 2000 outperformed Lame would you take his word for it?

Don't worry... It was a joke

At this point of debate I was thinking also to say that for me 64kbps blade mp3 is the best in the world and that all other codecs sucks, because it's so, I hear so, and I needn't ABX or I can't do it or perhaps I'll do it in the future...

**neilthecellist** · April 17, 2005, 04:53 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Don't trust anything I say. I'm a very naive 15 year old.

**Tomb** · April 17, 2005, 06:12 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Originally posted by alrakis

Don't worry... It was a joke

At this point of debate I was thinking also to say that for me 64kbps blade mp3 is the best in the world and that all other codecs sucks, because it's so, I hear so, and I needn't ABX or I can't do it or perhaps I'll do it in the future...

And it wasn't April 1st!

Originally posted by neilthecellist

Don't trust anything I say. I'm a very naive 15 year old..

That's not the point mate. It does not matter how old you are. My point which you are fail to comprehend, which may be due to your age, is that you cannot make claims without substansive evidence, proof or facts to back them up. You cannot say for example Lyon is the capital of France without proof. Your word therefore is meaningless. It's a shame that you don't understand what I am trying to say especially as you respond to so many threads, and in a mostly valid way, on this forum.

It states on the front of dbpoweramps main page that " Program quality and ultimately audio quality is paramount, we will not settle for anything but perfection, you shouldn't either!" Your statements, without any facts to back them, up break this ideal.

I'm done with this thread. I may as well hit my head against a brick wall............

**neilthecellist** · April 17, 2005, 06:21 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Ok ok...so I figured out how to make screenshots.....Even with the ability to create screenshots, how do I get my proof in? Posting mini-sound clips?

**LtData** · April 17, 2005, 06:23 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Alright, it seems that this thread is getting a little out of control. While there may be claims made, they are opinions until backed up with facts. Also, every persons opinion is different. Graphs or no, each person has to decide for themselves how a codec sounds at different bitrates. Personal listening tests with varied tracks should be how each person decides what codec and bitrate they wish to use for their personal collection.

**neilthecellist** · April 17, 2005, 06:25 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Ok, I'll bear that in mind. So it's all opinion, it CAN'T be supported by proof?

**alrakis** · April 17, 2005, 06:26 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

ya...

**neilthecellist** · April 17, 2005, 06:30 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

ah ok.

Abandon thread, abandon thread!!

**alrakis** · April 17, 2005, 06:36 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Originally posted by alrakis

ya...

this was to tomb: i'm done too...

**Tomb** · April 17, 2005, 06:40 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Originally posted by LtData

Alright, it seems that this thread is getting a little out of control. While there may be claims made, they are opinions until backed up with facts. Also, every persons opinion is different. Graphs or no, each person has to decide for themselves how a codec sounds at different bitrates. Personal listening tests with varied tracks should be how each person decides what codec and bitrate they wish to use for their personal collection.

Exactly hence my statements that one person cannot say that A sounds shit compared to B without proof.

I don't care if Neil said that This Codec sounds better to That One to him. However to state this generally as an accepted statement, without facts, as two of the people have claimed in this thread then i'm afraid that this has to be challenged

Why is this thread out of control Lt Data? Can't anyone have a mature debate these days?

**Tomb** · April 17, 2005, 06:43 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Originally posted by alrakis

this was to tomb: i'm done too...

Pass me the white flag............

**Link500X** · April 17, 2005, 06:55 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Originally posted by neilthecellist

Ok ok...so I figured out how to make screenshots.....Even with the ability to create screenshots, how do I get my proof in? Posting mini-sound clips?

You can make a separate webpage like I did for my graphs. http://freewebspace.net/ has a long list of free hosts.

Tomb, why don't you do a test yourself?

Originally posted by Tomb

I don't care if Neil said that This Codec sounds better to That One to him. However to state this generally as an accepted statement, without facts, as two of the people have claimed in this thread then i'm afraid that this has to be challenged

I already provided my proof, in the form of graphs.

**alrakis** · April 17, 2005, 07:03 PM

Re: MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Originally posted by Tomb

Pass me the white flag............

we both need a bed sheet...

MP3 Quality/Conversion: LAME vs. others

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment